Friday, October 7, 2016

Perspectives on the Evolution/Creation Controversy

The vast majority of what we hear about the evolution/creation controversy comes from the rather vocal ends of a spectrum of views. These two ends (the supporters of “young earth creation” and “atheistic evolution”) debate through the media and other avenues, often generating more heat than light. However, while the extremes engage in heated debate (or talk past each other), there are a host of sincere, educated Christians who have carefully considered scriptural and scientific evidence to arrive at a range of intermediate views seeking to harmonize the evidence. In what follows, I will briefly summarize 5 perspectives on the evolution-creation issue.

First, most people recognize that the universe and earth give the appearance of being very old (universe = 13.8 billion years old, earth = 4.5 billion years old). Note that I do not say that the universe and earth are old, but that they appear old. I will say more about this later.

Second, most people recognize that a variety of species exists today and a variety of species previously existed (e.g., mammoths, dinosaurs, ammonites, dodos and so on). Furthermore, clear patterns of similarity (e.g., genetic similarity, morphological similarity) exist among species that exist today. Patterns of similarity also exist between the species existing today and species that no longer exist. Thus, for example, mastodons, mammoths, and modern elephants show genetic commonalities that are unique to that group. Similarly, dogs and bears show genetic similarities or commonalities, some of which do not exist in other creatures. Even strains of influenza virus (e.g., modern flu strains vs. the 1918 flu pandemic virus) show genetic similarities (which is why we can have “flu shots”). The genetic similarities are echoed by morphological (i.e., bone structure or physical structure) similarities. Mastodons, mammoths, and modern elephants show similar physical and bone structure, as do dogs/bears, or feline species (e.g., lions, saber-tooth tigers, housecats, and so on).

Three, adherents of each position below (with one exception - atheistic evolution), also consider the scripture of the Old and New Testaments to be divinely inspired and authoritative for Christian faith/doctrine and practice. That is, every position (except for atheistic evolution) is held by sincere Christians who are committed to the Bible as their guide for faith/practice; a number of these Christians also have graduate degrees (e.g., PhDs) in the sciences or social sciences and serve as faculty at a host of Christian universities and colleges around the world.

Having noted what most individuals involved in this debate agree upon, the question then becomes one of reconciling these three sources of evidence (physical evidence about the age of the earth/universe, biological evidence about species and their relationships, and scriptural evidence about God’s role in creation). In the chart I have provided below, I have presented 5 attempts at reconciling these lines of evidence. These attempts form a spectrum of views. I will start by very briefly addressing the single “non-Christian” view – atheistic evolution, then proceed to the other extreme (young earth creation) and subsequently address the middle 3 positions. Keep in mind that these are general perspectives; each perspective may contain several variations. Furthermore, the perspectives are not always clearly separable from each other. Individuals may hold views that combine or are on the border of two perspectives.

Young Earth

Creation

Old Earth

Creation

Progressive

Creation

Theistic Evolution

Atheistic Evolution

Very brief summary

God created all in 6 days a relatively short time ago (i.e., 4000-8000 years ago)

God created all in 6 days a long time ago (billions of years ago)

God created separate species over a long period of time.

Separate species appeared over a long period of time, through the “God directed” evolutionary process.

There is no God. Separate species appeared over a long period of time, though the evolutionary process.

Approach to Bible

Generally a strict literal approach to Bible

Generally a literal approach, with some interpretation. E.g., day = age theory, days of revelation theory

No comments:

TEN YEARS OF DISCUSSION

With the advent of the internet, blog-sites and websites like that of the "Former Salvation Army Officers' Fellowship" and the now defunct "Rubicon" have provided unofficial but influ­ential opportunities for free discussion. An officially-sponsored discussion forum on the IHQ website seemed to attract limited participation however.

THE RUSSIAN SA CREST 1913

Cross and Cultural sensitivity in early SA entry to Russia

Translate

Commissioner Joe Noland

Commissioner Joe Noland

As a retired Salvation Army officer, in some ways I feel like a former officer. And as a retired Commissioner, I probably get more respect than others, but believe me there are lots of similarities between “ former” and “sent out to pasture”. I'll not bore you with the parallels, except to say that since being “pasteurized” my understanding and empathy has increased greatly.

This said to plug a blog site for former Salvation Army officers, www.fsaof.blogspot.com. I drop in periodically because the well-written posts and discussion following helps me keep everything in perspective. I would recommend the same for every not yet yet pasteurized leader because your day is coming soon considering the age at which most top leaders are appointed, but more importantly because the insight gained there will provide proper balance to your personnel related decision making during the interim.

Thank you!

A blessing every day - OWL said... Your Advent season posts by Elizabeth and Howard are a special gift that words can't describe nor can I express enough thanks. They brought a new appreciation of God's intended plan for me and all men. And thank you to you too John, our resident Pastor. There is no Salvation Army site anywhere that so completely shares the Christmas narrative. God bless you all, Former SA Missionary 25 December, 2014

The Salvation Army must not become so much of a middle-class movement that it forgets 'the rock whence it is hewn'. It is called to proclaim salvation to all classes, but its special glory should be its concern for and its ability to appeal to the lowest and most forgotten, and to be their champion in every respect.

Followers

UPDATE! 62% of the FSAOF blog visitors rate it as their #1 site for SA content and relevance!

Why do many Salvation Army officers, when they resign, no longer persist in “proclaiming the Gospel of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ”, ...

SA TODAY

WE NEED OFFICERS

Officers are not better than anybody else – we need to be clear about that. Officership by its nature is about availability and mobility. In a worldwide Salvation Army we need people who are prepared to serve anywhere and be of service to the cause of Christ, with all their gifts. We need people who are available. So the more officers the better! We need officers who see this not as a profession in a secular sense but as sacrificial service. General Lina Bond: "Officership needs to underscore sacrifice."

WELCOME!

Each week about ten thousand visitors will read this blog; 1,600,000 to date. Most of the articles are written by former SA officers. We pray that those who pause and visit this site may in some small way be challenged, comforted, and moved to reflect beyond the worldly norm. The blog serves too to inform friends and family of what we 'formers' are thinking and doing as we serve in our current chosen and assigned vocational settings.

From LONDON; ACTIVE OFFICER

Just wanted to write and say thanks for your efforts for former Salvation Army officers. Looking down the list of members on the blog I realise that there are many familiar faces and names. At the end of the day, many people are listed, who I still love and respect and who shouldn't have been put in a position where they have become former SA Officers. Anything which can harness the positive contribution they can bring and bring some care and support in what is often a very challenging decision, can only be applauded. Well done for doing this.CO UKT

There was an error in this gadget

INTERNATIONAL HEADQUARTERS LONDON, ENGLAND

I read your blog pages with great interest, which are the most meaningful SA pages on the Internet, with a substance that far outpaces even our own official SA websites. I'm particularly impressed that you are factual and accurate in your observations, especially due your transparency; not opinionated in any particular direction. You gain and win credibility as a result. IHQ

DISCLAIMER

Whilst we endeavour to ensure that the information on this website is correct, we do not warrant its completeness or accuracy; nor do we commit to ensuring that the website remains available or that the material on the website is kept up to date.

To the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, we exclude all representations, warranties and conditions relating to this website and the use of this website (including, without limitation, any warranties implied by law in respect of satisfactory quality, fitness for purpose and/or the use of reasonable care and skill).

Nothing in this disclaimer will:(a) limit or exclude our or your liability for death or personal injury resulting from negligence; (b) limit or exclude our or your liability for fraud or fraudulent misrepresentation; (c)limit any of our or your liabilities in any way that is not permitted under applicable law; or (d) exclude any of our or your liabilities that may not be excluded under applicable law.